RN-2016-1 Corrosion Resistant Steel

Alloys for Reinforced Concrete

Research Note FHWA Publications Numbers FHWA-HRT-07-0-39 (July, 2007)
and FHWA-HRT-09-020 (May, 2009)

INTRODUCTION to acetone degreasing. All tests included

straight bars and some also with bars bent
The objective of this research study 180º with a radius four times the bar diam-
was to investigate the properties of vari- eter. Also, testing of the two clad bar types
ous steel alloys compared to black bars and A1035 included surface damaged con-
in concrete exposed to chlorides, given ditions, which for clad bars consisted of
uncertainties regarding long-term perfor- 1) abrasion and 2) surface indentations,
mance of epoxy-coated reinforcements. where the former did not penetrate the
This research commenced in 2003 as a cladding and the latter did. For A1035
joint study by the Florida Department of specimens, surface indentation alone was
Transportation (FDOT) and Florida Atlantic employed. Also included were concrete
University (FAU) under dual sponsorship specimens with various combinations of
by the Federal Highway Administration bar crevices, simulated cracks, black bot-
(FHWA) and FDOT. An Interim Report1 was tom bars, and top bars sand blasted, pick-
published by FHWA in 2007 and a second led or wire brushed.
Interim Report in 2009.2 The purpose of
this Research Note is to describe the ma- TEST AND MEASUREMENT
terials and test methods employed and to
METHODS
summarize the findings.
Tests involved both 1) short-term ac-
STEEL TYPES celerated screening tests (AST) in aque-
ous solutions and 2) long-term exposures
Table 1 lists the steel types that were
in concrete. The former, all of which were
tested. Bar size in all cases was #5 (0.625
conducted at FAU, were comprised of three
inches nominal).
subsets: AST-1 (Wet-Dry Exposures), AST-
Table 1: Listing of steel types that were studied. 2A (Aqueous Solution Chloride
Designation/ Common As-Received Threshold Determinations),
Microstructure
Specification Designation Condition and 3) AST-2B (Pitting Potential
UNS-S31603 Type 316 SS Pickled Austenitic Determinations). Particular em-
UNS-S30400 Type 304 SS Pickled Austenitic phasis was placed upon AST-2A,
UNS-S31803 Type 2205 SS As-Rolled Duplex since results from this can po-
ASTM A955-98 Type 2101LDX SS* As-Rolled Lean Duplex tentially provide data relevant to
UNS-S31803 Type 2304 SS As-Rolled Duplex service life projection modeling.
ASTM A1035 MMFX-2™ As-Rolled Microcomposite Figure 1(a) shows a photograph
n/a Nouvinox Pickled 316 Clad black bar of a six-inch-long stainless steel
n/a SMI Pickled 317 Clad black bar clad specimen with epoxy end
UNS-S41003 Type 3Cr12 SS Pickled Ferritic
sealing and electrical lead as em-
ASTM A615 black bar As-Rolled Ferrite/Pearlite
ployed for AST-1 and Figure 1(b)
*The 2007 report incorrectly labeled this reinforcement as 2201.
shows a photograph of speci-
mens under test. The procedure
involved successive 28 day two
SPECIMEN PREPARATION hours submerged – four hours in humid air
with 3, 9, and 15 wt% NaCl. Corrosion rate
Differences in the as-received surface was determined both by periodic polariza-
condition, as listed in Table 1, reflect the tion resistance, RP, measurements(1) and
decision that this would not be specified by
the researchers; and tests were performed
per the condition provided by the manufac- (1) Polarization resistance or Rp is a parameter derived
turer/supplier and subsequently subjected
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation from electrochemical measurements to which corro-
sion rate is inversely proportional.
(a) (b)
Figure 1: Photographs of (a) an AST 1 test specimen and (b) specimens under test.

(a) (b)
Figure 2: Schematic illustration (a) and photograph (b) of the AST-2A test arrangement.

(a) (b)
Figure 3: Schematic illustration of an SDS specimen (a) and photo of specimens under test (b).

Figure 4: Schematic illustration of straight and bent bar MS Figure 5: Photograph of MS specimens under test.
specimens. specimens.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2 Fire Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings [ETN-B-1-16]

Figure 6: Schematic illustration of straight, bent, and elevated
3BTC type
Figure 7: Photograph of S3BC and 3BTC specimens under test.
Figure 8: Photograph of FC specimens under test.
also weight loss upon specimen termination. A total of
267 specimens were tested.
Figure 2, on the other hand, provides a schematic illus-
tration (a) and photograph (b) of the AST-2A experimen-
tal setup. The same specimen type was employed as
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
for AST-1. Individual specimens and a counter electrode
were positioned about the container perimeter with a
reference electrode at the center. The electrolyte was a
simulated pore solution consisting of NaOH and KOH.
Specimens were potentiostatically polarized to +100 mV
(SCE) and current periodically recorded via a data acqui-
sition system. Chloride was incrementally added; and
the concentration that corresponded to a current density
of 10 μA/cm2 was taken as the critical value for passive
film breakdown, CT.
AST-2B experiments, on the other hand, involved po-
tentiodynamic polarization scans in saturated Ca(OH)2
solutions with 0-6.07 wt% Cl-. Both longitudinal and
transverse cross-section specimens were employed.
Testing was limited to A1035 and stainless steel types
3Cr12, 2101, and 316.
Four different types of reinforced concrete specimens
were employed for longer term exposures, including 1)
simulated deck slabs (SDS), as shown in Figure 3, 2)
macro-cell slabs (MS) as seen in Figures 4 and 5, 3) two
different types of three bar columns (designations S3BC
and 3BTC – Figure 6), and 4) field columns (FC – Figure
7). All were fabricated by the Florida Department of
Transportation State Materials Office (FDOT-SMO). The
SDS and MS specimen types were intended to simu-
late bridge decks and the S3BC, 3BTC, and FC partially
submerged bridge substructure elements. Three con-
crete mix designs, designated STD1 (5 bags cement and
0.50 w/c) which yielded a high permeability concrete, 2)
STD2 (7 bags cement and 0.41 w/c) which resulted in
moderate permeability, and 3) STD3 (7 bags of cement
and 0.50 w/c) which provided intermediate permeability,
were employed. Exposure of SDS specimens took place
at FAU, while S3BC and 3BTC ones were at FDOT-SMO.
Field Column exposures, on the other hand, were posi-
tioned in the tidal zone at an Intracoastal Waterway site
near Crescent Beach, FL (Figure 8).
MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Example AST-1 results are shown in Figure 9 as a plot
of polarization resistance, RP, and chloride concentration
versus time. Considering that corrosion rate is inversely
proportional to RP, the data indicate a one to two or-
der of magnitude lower corrosion rate for A1035 and
3Cr12 compared to black bars. Likewise, corrosion rate
of 316SS and 2205SS is one to two orders of magnitude
less than for A1035 and 3Cr12.
Figure 10 illustrates example AST-2A results for ten
A1035 specimens. The data show that the assumed 10
µA/cm2 threshold for active corrosion (see above) was
reached between 230 to 335 days. Figure 11 summa-
rizes these results for three steel alloys and black bars
as a plot of the number of active specimens versus chlo-
ride concentration. Based upon these and other results,
bars were classified as either “Improved Performers” or
“High Performers”, where the former initiated corrosion
CRSI Technical Note 3

Figure 9: Plot of RP and chloride concentration as a function of time for
316SS, 2205SS, A1035, and 3Cr12SS.
Figure 10: Plot of current density for ten A1035 AST-2A specimens
and chloride concentration (heavy dashed line) as a function of time.
Figure 11: Plot of the number of active specimens ver-
sus the chloride concentration, CT, for Improved Performer
reinforcements.
within the project time frame, albeit at greater times than
for black bars, and the latter did not, at least for speci-
mens of the standard configuration (all bars straight and
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4 Fire Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings [ETN-B-1-16]
no crevices or simulated concrete cracks).
Results such as shown here led to the con-
cept that CT is not a specific value but con-
forms to a distribution. This principle was
adapted as well in evaluating the results for
reinforced concrete specimens.
Figure 12 shows typical time-to-corrosion
(Ti) results for two Improved Performer
steel types compared to black bars in the
case of MS specimens with the STD2
concrete mix. The results indicate about a
20-fold Ti increase for 2101SS compared
to black bars and 25-fold for A1035. These
increases were greater than for the STD1
mix, suggesting that Ti enhancement for
these steel alloys increases with increasing
concrete quality. Table 2 summarizes these
CT data for the case of Improved Performer
steel alloys with the STD1 concrete mix de-
sign at 2, 10, and 20 percent active. As noted above,
thresholds are expected to be greater for better quality
concrete. Likewise, Figure 13 plots potential and macro-
cell current versus time for 316SS MS specimens with
the STD-1 concrete mix. These data show that poten-
tial remained relatively positive and macro-cell current
nil except for momentary excursions. Apparently, these
resulted from localized passive film disruption events fol-
lowed by repassivation. Such excursions were greater
for 304SS than for 316SS.
Chloride analyses were also performed at the bar
depth of SDS High Performer specimens after expo-
sure times as long as 1,726 days, although these bars
remained passive, with results being shown in Table 3.
As such, the values provide a chloride concentration that
CT exceeds.
Improved performers were 3CR12, A1035, and
2101SS, whereas high performers were 304SS, 316SS,
2304SS and the two clad bar types.(2) Black bar results
were included with the Improved Performer data for the
purpose of comparison.
CHLORIDE ANALYSES
Chloride analyses were performed upon, first, cores
acquired from companion non-reinforced concrete spec-
imens and, second, powdered concrete from milling
along the upper bar trace of reinforced specimens away
from active corrosion sites upon autopsy, both shortly
after active potentials were noted. The latter concentra-
tions were invariably greater than the former because of
the bar obstruction effect. These data served to quantify
CT. Figure 14 shows a cumulative distribution function
plot of CT, and Table 2 summarizes these for the case of
Improved Performer steel alloys at 2, 10, and 20 percent
(2) 2205SS is not included as a high performer simply because it was
not tested in concrete.
 Table 2: Listing of CT at different percentages of active
bars and ratios compared to black bars for Improved
Performer bars.
Percent CT, wt% cement CT (steel alloy)/CT(black bar)
Active BB 3Cr12 A1035 2101SS 3Cr12 A1035 2101SS
2 0.34 1.40 1.50 1.30 4.12 4.41 3.82
10 0.53 2.05 2.25 1.80 3.87 4.25 3.40
20 0.65 2.40 2.50 2.05 3.69 3.85 3.15

Table 3: Listing of lower limit CT values for High Performer

reinforcements.
Reinforcement Exposure Time, days CT, wt% cement (Lower Limit)
316SS 1,726 5.02
304SS 440 3.68
Stelax !,726 5.02
SMI 944 4.51
Figure 12: Cumulative probability of corrosion initiation for MS
specimens versus exposure time.

active. These data are for the STD1

concrete mix design and, as noted
above, may be greater for better quality
concrete.

The FC specimens with Improved

Performer and black bars typically initi-
ated corrosion within the first several
days of exposure. This is thought to
have resulted because of poor con-
crete quality and possibly cracks that
provided direct water access to the
reinforcement. With one exception,
the High Performer reinforcements
remained passive. The exception was
a 316SS reinforced column that was
damaged during installation.

AUTOPSY RESULTS
Figure 13: Plot of potential and macro-cell current for three 316 SS specimens.
Dissection of specimens shortly af-
ter a significant negative potential shift
and a corresponding large macrocell
current increase were recorded typi-
cally revealed one or more small areas
of corrosion products upon the bar or
bars in question. Figure 15 shows an
example where a small area of corro-
sion product is seen on the bar trace of
a black bar SDS specimen.

CONCLUSIONS
This study classified bars as ei-
ther Improved Performers or High
Performers. Overall, ranking of the
Improved Performers according to Ti
was black bars < 2101SS < 3Cr12 <
A1035. Based upon the CT and macro-
cell current data, the study concluded
that the intended service life of major
Figure 14: Cumulative distribution Function plot of CT for Improved Performer
reinforced concrete structures (75-100
years) can confidently be achieved with
and black bar.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
CRSI Technical Note 5
 REFERENCES
1. W.H. Hartt, R.G. Powers, D.K. Lysogorski, V. Liroux, Y.P. Virmani,
Corrosion Resistant Alloys for reinforced Concrete, Report No. FH-
WA-HRT-07-039, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC,
July, 2007.
2. W.H. Hartt, R.G. Powers, F. Presuel Marino, M Parades, R. Sim-
mons, H. Yu, R. Himiob, Y.P. Virmani, Corrosion Resistant Alloys for re-
inforced Concrete, Report No. FHWA-HRT-09-020, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC, May, 2009.
3. W.H. Hartt, “Protocol for Projecting Time-to-Corrosion of Reinforc-
ing Steel in Concrete Exposed to Chlorides,” Corrosion, Vol. 66, 2010,
p. 086002.

Figure 15. Example of corrosion products upon dissection of a
specimen.
the solid High Performer reinforcements that were in-
vestigated, namely 304SS, 316SS, and 2304SS. Note
that 2205SS is not included as a high performer simply
because it was not tested in concrete in this study. This
may be the case also for the clad reinforcements pro-
vided, first, there is adequate control of surface defects
and, second, bar ends are protected. This same service
life may result also with the Improved Performer bars
provided design and construction quality control are
good and concrete cracking is minimal but with a lesser
degree of confidence and margin for error compared to
the high performance reinforcements.
4. W.H. Hartt, “Corrosion Initiation Projection for Reinforced Con-
crete Exposed to Chlorides: Part 1 – Black Bars, Corrosion, Vol. 67,
2011, p. 086002-1.
5. W.H. Hartt, “Corrosion Initiation Projection for Reinforced Con-
crete Exposed to Chlorides: Part 2 – Corrosion Resistant Bars, Corro-
sion, Vol. 67, 2011, p. 086003-1.
6. W.H. Hartt, “Service Life Projection for Chloride Exposed Concrete
Reinforced with Black and Corrosion Resistant Bars, Corrosion, Vol.
68, 2012, p. 754.
7. F. Presuel-Moreno, F. Gutierrez, J. Zielske, V. Casas, and Y. Wu,
“Analysis and Estimation of Service Life of Corrosion Prevention Ma-
terials Using Diffusion, Resistivity and Accelerated Curing for New
Bridge Structures,” Final Report BDK79-977-02, Volume 1, “Corrosion
Prevention Materials - Monitoring and Forensic Examination,” Chap-
ter 4; Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL., 2013.

Several follow-on publications based upon the findings

of this study have resulted.3, 4, 5, 6 Also, the FDOT and FAU
have continued the exposures and monitoring of con-
crete specimens that were not autopsied, and a report
pertaining to some of the results has been issued.7

Contributors: The primary contributors to this publication are: (2007) W.H. Hartt, R.G. Powers, D.K.
Lysogorski, V. Liroux, Y.P. Virmani and (2009) W.H. Hartt, R.G. Powers, F. Presuel Marino, M. Parades,
R. Simmons, H. Yu, R. Himiob, Y.P. Virmani.

Keywords: corrosion resistance, reinforcing bar, alloys, testing.

Reference: Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute – CRSI [2016], “Corrosion Resistant Alloys for Rein-
933 North Plum Grove Rd.
forced Concrete”, CRSI Research Note RN-2016-1, Schaumburg, Illinois, 6pp. Schaumburg, IL 60173-4758
p. 847-517-1200 • f. 847-517-1206
Historical: None. New Research Note. www.crsi.org
Regional Offices Nationwide
Note: This publication is intended for the use of professionals competent to evaluate the significance
and limitations of its contents and who will accept responsibility for the application of the material it A Service of the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute
contains. The Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute reports the foregoing material as a matter of infor- ©2016 This publication, or any part thereof, may not be
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
mation and, therefore, disclaims any and all responsibility for application of the stated principles or for reproduced without the expressed written consent of CRSI.
the accuracy of the sources other than material developed by the Institute.